The nation’s highest court has refused to take two Indiana cases, including the high-profile abuse and neglect case
of 3-year-old TaJanay Bailey that revealed fatal flaws in the state’s child welfare system.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the decision by the full Worker’s Compensation Board that a medical services provider’s
application for an adjustment of claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations found in Indiana Code Section 22-3-3-3.
The appellate court relied on a recent decision involving a similar scenario to make its ruling.

The Indiana Court of Appeals tackled an issue of first impression in a case involving double jeopardy principles. A defendant’s
sentence was enhanced under the Firearm Enhancement Statute following a conviction for reckless homicide.

The nation’s highest court has refused to consider an Indiana case involving whether a defendant’s no contest
plea to an out-of-state murder can be used to qualify him as a serious violent felon on a conviction here.

A trial court erred in ordering a man’s name removed from the state’s sex offender registry because the court
didn’t provide notice to the appropriate parties or hold a hearing before doing so, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a pro se inmate’s petition for permission to file a belated appeal
after his post-conviction relief petition was denied, finding the chronological cases summary to contain inconsistencies.
The judges also noted that this particular court has a “documented history” of not organizing and keeping abreast
of its post-conviction relief files.

The Indiana Supreme Court took four cases for the week ending Jan. 7, including a case in which a convicted child molester
asked for his sentence to be reduced but ended up having it ordered to be increased due to a sentencing error.

The Indiana Senate and House of Representatives reconvened this afternoon to begin the 2011 long session. The legislators
still have time to file bills, but there are already several bills introduced that may affect Indiana courts and the legal
community.

For the first time since the mid 1950s, the Indiana Judges Association won’t have anyone in the Baker family sitting
on the board of managers and being as intimately involved in the group’s activities as they have been for two-thirds
of the group’s existence.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to a case in which the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled a mother of a stillborn fetus
satisfied the actual victim requirement under the Medical Malpractice Act.

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a trial judge decision against awarding a litigant prejudgment interest in an uninsured
motorist case, examining two issues of first impression and finding that state statute warrants the litigant receive that
money even when it exceeds insurance policy limits for those types of claims.

The Indiana Court of Appeals denied an Attorney General’s request to clarify a previous ruling that slashed a $42.4
million damages award, and clarified the two-month period from which state employees can recover back pay.

The Indiana Supreme Court has reaffirmed the state’s reliance on the uniform-contract interpretation approach rather
than a site-specific approach for deciding which of several states’ laws should apply to an environmental remediation
insurance coverage case.

A paternity and child custody case has given the Indiana Court of Appeals a chance to examine a newly amended evidence rule
for the first time, while simultaneously offering guidance to trial judges about using publicly accessible information to
dispose of cases.

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that two former leaders in the Indiana State Teachers Association who served as trustees
for a legally separate insurance trust can’t force the trust’s governing board to adhere to arbitration clauses
outlined in their ISTA employment contracts.

While recognizing that the state’s practice of allowing late introduction of evidence basically rewards attorneys who
don’t prepare for trial, the Indiana Court of Appeals looked beyond that practice in a recent decison to how the rules
still protect a person’s right to a fair trial.